Home Personal Lives New Items Hinckley Page DNA & Book of Mormon Blacks & Priesthood LDS History Resources LDS Missouri Period Crooked River LDS Religious Links LDS Scripture Page Martin Luther King Evolution & LDS SBHS Track SSM analysis Abortion Grant Palmer Intelligent Design

DNA & Book of Mormon
Home Whiting DNA Glossary Whiting Panel Clark

 

 

Recent adds to this page

DNA and the Book of Mormon

Tom Murphy situation

DNA Glossary ( terms and definitions )

   

Recent adds to this page - reverse chronological order

  1. On May 25, 2004, BYU professor John E. Clark gave a talked entitled Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief.  Hundreds of BYU students and faculty attended.  A Q&A immediately followed the formal presentation (the Q&A was attended by a much smaller group). The links to find information on this talk can be found at http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/50535 .  The audio can be found at http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1277&tid=

    A transcript of the talk can be found here.  A partial transcript of the Q & A can be found here
  2. Simon Southerton, a PhD anthropologist and well known in DNA and Book of Mormon field, will have his book published this coming September 2004.  A small blurb on it can be found at http://www.signaturebooks.com/Losing.htm .   I have read an advanced readers copy of the book, and it is worth your purchase.  An AP newspaper article about Southerton and the DNA problem can be found at http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_2380696 and at http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/weird_news/9272798.htm .  The Signature Book of Mormon news page is  http://www.signaturebooks.com/bomnews.htm
  3. The following appeared on the LDS church official website at 

    DNA and the Book of Mormon
    Various media outlets, 11 November 2003

    The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is exactly what it claims to be — a record of God’s dealings with peoples of ancient America and a second witness of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The strongest witness of the Book of Mormon is to be obtained by living the Christ-centered principles contained in its pages and by praying about its truthfulness.

    Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence are ill considered. Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex. Those interested in a more detailed analysis of those issues are referred to the resources below.

    The following are not official Church positions or statements. They are simply information resources from authors with expertise in this area that readers may find helpful:

    "Before DNA" (John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003) Download PDF document (715 KB)  

    "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective" (Michael F. Whiting, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003) Download PDF document (431 KB)

    "A Few Thoughts from a Believing Scientist" (John M. Butler, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003) Download PDF document (169 KB)

    "Who Are the Children of Lehi?" (D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003) Download PDF document (427 KB)

    While the church statement above that "nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin" is correct, the wording in the preface of the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites are the "principal ancestors of the American Indians" does preclude that the overwhelming vast majority of the Amerinds are of Asiatic origins.  As explained elsewhere, the "principle ancestors" phrase was added to the Book of Mormon in 1981, and is not canonical.

    My personal views mirror the Stephens / Meldrum piece, which is the best of the group.

  4. Anthropology News (44.5, May, 2003) has printed two letters critical of the February article by Simon Southerton and Tom Murphy, "Genetic Research a 'Galileo Event' for Mormons." One of the letters is an excerpt from Kevin Barney's review of the news article published in the newsletter for FAIR. The editor invited Tom to reply to Barney's critique. If you are a member of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) you may view the letters and Tom's reply online at the address below.

    http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/index.htm

    Nonmembers of AAA may request a copy of the correspondence on page 4 of the May, 2003 (44.5) issue of Anthropology News from Ghita Levine (glevine@aaanet.org).

    Kevin Barney's full review can be found at the page below.

    http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom08.html

    Finally, you can find a copy of "Genetic Research a 'Galileo Event' for Mormons" as well as Tom's reply to the excerpted part of Barney's review linked
    to Tom's list of publications on Tom's home page.

    http://faculty.edcc.edu/~tmurphy/publications.html
  5. Tom's UPCOMING SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS - "Sin, Skin, and Seed: Mistakes of Men in the Book of Mormon."  

    A PDF of his presentation can be found at http://faculty.edcc.edu/~tmurphy/sinskinseed5.pdf or here.

    March 20, 2003
    11:00-1:00 p.m. 
    Nordic Lounge, Liberal Arts campus
    Long Beach City College
    Long Beach, CA

    April 19, 2003
    San Francisco Clarion Airport Hotel
    Sunstone Symosium West
    Session 72, 3:30 pm - 5:00 pm
    San Francisco, CA

    April 26, 2003
    4:30-5:00 p.m. 
    Aurora Room, Idaho Commons Building
    American Academy of Religion - PNW Region
    University of Idaho
    Moscow, ID

  6. Kevin Barney has written A Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's "Galileo Event.  It was written for the February 2003 edition of Anthropology News, and can be found at  http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom08.html .  You will note that he makes many points that I have also made ( see below ).  All in all, this is the best essay on the topic I have found.

  7. Living Hope Ministries has released the full video "DNA vs. the Book of Mormon" online. See http://www.mormonchallenge.com/dna/dna.htm .  Brent Metcalfe posted a rather good review of this video.  It can be found at http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm58.showMessage?topicID=309.topic .  His review also expresses my views ( in general ).  It bothers me when either side makes biased statements ( including, at times, Brent,  but not in this case - he begs for a fair middle ground in this review  ).  Here is that review:

    A night or so ago, my wife and I watched the new video DNA vs. the Book of Mormon (Living Hope Ministries) and I thought I'd share a few thoughts.

    The good, ...  LHM has gathered a stellar cast to discuss BoMor problems posed by Amerindian genetics. LDS, ex-LDS, and non-LDS scientists lucidly explain the significance of mtDNA and Y-chromosomal analysis for understanding the peopling of the Americas. A running commentary (interspersed among the specialists' cameos) gives a reasonably good intro to the BoMor doctrine of Lamanite identity and destiny. Uniformly, all those interviewed (with the exception of Gordon B. Hinckley) acknowledge that Amerinds originally migrated from Asia, and that there is no evidence of an ancient Middle Eastern contribution to the Amerind genome.

    For those reasons alone, the video was worth watching.

    ... the bad, ...  I was deeply disappointed by the overt bias exhibited by the video editors. Viewers are repeatedly informed that genetic evidence indicates that Amerindian ancestors migrated to the Americas from their Asian homeland; but viewers are never told when this occurred. Based on coalescent theory, geneticists place the migration(s) at 15,000–30,000 YBP, which some Evangelical types would believe is approximately 9,000–24,000 years before the earth was created.

    Science isn't a yard sale where we rummage through curious trinkets until we find those that best suit our taste. The very genetic club that Evangelical creationists use to bludgeon Mormons is actually a two-edged sword that snuffs creationism with the same ferocity that it slays the myth of BoMor Amerisraelites.

    Tom Murphy's comparison between biblical and BoMor archaeology was obviously edited to convey the view of LHM. I know firsthand that Tom feels that the Bible has its own set of problems that undermine biblical literalism. Those who watch the film will note that Tom is abruptly cut off when discussing this issue.

    ... and the ugly!  The video's uncritical, simplistic come-to-Jesus postscript struck me as almost humorous, especially following on the heels of erudite scientific exchange. LHM producers should have taken a few pointers from the IRR's The Lost Book of Abraham video.


    Cheers, bReNt

  8. February 23, 2003 - Tom is free from any more hearings.  Stake President Matt Latimer told Tom that he was no longer under threat of a hearing.  A story on it can be found at http://heraldnet.com/Stories/03/2/24/16557388.cfm?cityid=24 .  An article about it, along with a very nice TV video piece from KCPG, a Seattle TV station,  can be found at http://q13.trb.com/kcpq-022403mormon,0,996113.story

    Tom sent the following public letter ( Kerrie is Tom's wife ).

    Dear Colleagues, Friends, and Family,

    Kerrie and I had a very pleasant meeting this evening with President Matthew Latimer of the Lynnwood, WA stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). President Latimer had invited us to meet to discuss my scholarship and status in the church after indefinitely postponing disciplinary action on December 7th, the day before he had previously scheduled a disciplinary council to consider the possibility of excommunication for apostasy.

    I am pleased to report that President Latimer has placed a permanent hold on disciplinary action against me. He invited Kerrie and me to participate in continued private dialogue with the hope that he can encourage us to return to full activity and belief in the LDS Church without any threat of disciplinary action. In response to my inquiry, he assured us that he was not receiving pressure from his priesthood leaders to take action against me. He acknowledged consulting them to discuss my case but found them to be very supportive of his responsibility to make the proper decisions for his stake. He declined my invitation to co-sponsor open academic forums on genetics and racism in the Book of Mormon and recommended that I discuss that option with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies at Brigham Young University. We all agreed that these issues are best addressed in an academic rather than an ecclesiastical setting.

    We are very appreciative of the support that so many of you have shown us throughout this ordeal. We hope that other stake presidents will follow this most recent example of President Latimer and likewise refrain from using the threat of the threat of excommunication as tool for disciplining scholars.

    Cordially,

    Thomas W. Murphy

  9. February 19, 2003 - Tom Murphy will meet with his Stake President again on Sunday, February 23, 2003.  This comes from an email he sent.  Some extracts of that email are:

    1. I have been called back in for a meeting with President Latimer, scheduled for 8:00 p.m. on Sunday, Feb. 23rd. This is supposed to be a conversation, not a disciplinary council.

    2. KCPQ Fox 13 (Seattle) is running a special news program on my case, also on Sunday, Feb. 23rd (10:00 p.m.). The program should include interviews with several Native American ex-Mormons, Dr. Michael Whiting from BYU, and me.

    3. Lavina Fielding Anderson provided me with the following new statement.  Lavina Fielding Anderson has learned of another scholar, who does not wish to make the details of his or her situation public, being called in during the same August-December time frame as the earlier cases. In this situation, Elder Lance Wickman, a Seventy and head of the Church's Legal Department, played an active role in representing the Strengthening Church Members Committee to the stake president. This raises the possibility that Wickman has been involved in other cases as well. "Two other General Authorities," presumably at a rank superior to Wickman's were also involved in reviewing the material.

    When the existence of the Strengthening Church Members Committee was revealed in 1993, it was headed by two apostles, then James E. Faust and Dallin H. Oaks. If the same structure has been maintained, the "two other General Authorities" would presumably be members of the Quorum of the Twelve.  According to the Deseret News Church Almanac 2003, p. 46, Wickman is a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy (meaning that it is a permanent appointment until age seventy, not a five-year appointment like the lower quorums. His biographical information reads: "General counsel, office of Legal Services. Sustained to the Second Quorum of the Seventy April 2, 1994 [this was also the date or near it that the Office of Legal Services was created], at age 53; sustained to the First Quorum of the Seventy April 1, 2000. Served as regional representatives, stake president, and bishop. Received bachelor's degree from University of California at Berkeley and juris doctorate from Stanford University. Former partner in the international law firm of Latham and Watkins in San Diego, California. Born Nov. 11, 1940, in Seattle, Wash. to Alton C. and Irene Marilyn Carlson Wickman. Wife, Patricia Farr Wickman; parents of five children.


    5. I am preparing for a lecture on my research at Edmonds Community College.  The following announcement went out to campus email this past week.
    The Teaching and Learning Diversity Committee announces the following event, featuring a talk by one of our own faculty members, Thomas Murphy.
    Sin, Skin, and Seed:
    Mistakes of Men in the Book of Mormon
    Thomas W. Murphy
    Triton Union 202
    Tuesday, February 25, 7:00 - 8:30 p.m.

    A question and answer period and a book signing will follow the lecture.  Copies of American Apocrypha, the anthology containing Murphy's article, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics," will be available for purchase. All proceeds will be donated to the Pow Wow fund for the American Indian Student Association who will also host a bake sale at the event.

    Abstract:
    This presentation critically examines the use of folk biology to naturalize the power and authority of white men in Mormon scripture. It identifies key challenges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints faces in light of recent advances from the biological sciences. Is the Book of Mormon's assumption that skin color reflects sinfulness consistent with biological understandings of human physical variation? Are Biblical and Book of Mormon images of a patriarchal seed transmitted from fathers to sons consistent with modern understandings of biogenetic procreation?  Is an Israelite heritage of Nephites and Lamanites reflected in the genes and biology of American Indians? Research shows that skin color does not reflect sin. Agricultural models of human procreation do not accurately reflect women's contribution of half the genes of their children. Genetic data point to a Northeast Asian origin of Native Americans, not an Israelite one. Each of these assumptions should be relegated to what the title page of the Book of Mormon calls "mistakes of men." Furthermore, Mormon scriptural views of Native American origins and skin color are rooted in colonial and antebellum biblical hermeneutics, not authentic American Indian traditions.

    Biographical Statement:

    Thomas Murphy is Chair of the Anthropology Department at Edmonds Community College where he has been recognized as Club Advisor of the Year 2000-2001 for his work with the Native American Student Association. His publications have appeared in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Ethnohistory, Journal of Mormon History, Dialogue, and elsewhere. His research on the Persian Gulf War garnered a prize in ethics from the Elie Wiesel Foundation and his investigation of the sociological uses of writing in the Book of Mormon earned a literary award from the Dialogue Foundation. A recent article using genetic data to discredit the Mormon view that Native Americans came from ancient Israel has been the subject of international media attention. When the LDS Church initiated an attempt to excommunicate him in December 2002, supporters generously deemed him the "Galileo of Mormonism" and organized candle light vigils in ten different U.S. cities to show their support for his courage. In response to the negative publicity the LDS Church indefinitely postponed the church disciplinary action. "Sin, Skin, and Seed: Mistakes of Men in the Book of Mormon," is a synthesis of two chapters of his doctoral dissertation in anthropology, currently in progress, at the University of Washington. This event is sponsored by the Teaching and Learning Diversity Committee.


    best,
    twm

  10. An excellent article from Time magazine Feb 17 2003 edition about DNA is found at http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030217/story.html 

Thomas Murphy Situation ( chronological order )

Thomas Murphy is an LDS Cultural Anthropologist who has written several papers on Lamanites and the Book of Mormon, some of which deal with the implications of DNA research for Mormon views of American Indians.   He is not a molecular anthropologist.  

  1. Murphy's DNA article that started this current fuss is Thomas W. Murphy, murphy_tom "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics;" part of Dan Vogel & Brent Metcalfe, Eds., "American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormons,"Signature Books, (May 2002). Read reviews or order this book from Amazon.com online book store   To order the book from the publisher, or to read a long excerpt from the book, go to http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/apocrypha.htm.  For an excellent review of the book by my good friend Jeff Needle, go to http://www.aml-online.org/reviews/b/B200243.html  For excerpts from other reviews, see http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/apocrypha.htm  Murphy's article is a literature review from a cultural anthropological perspective, not a scientific study.  This is the paper that Tom's Stake President wanted to discuss with him in December 2002. 

  2. http://mormonscripturestudies.com/bomor/twm/lamgen.asp   This is an earlier version of the article above, and first appeared in August 2001.  However, Murphy's Stake President was not aware of this article.   

    Paragraphs 1 - 41 of this work is on solid ground.  However, Murphy's conclusions in the last three paragraphs do not follow from the previous 41 paragraphs.  My comments are in red.  

    ¶42 From a scientific perspective, the BoMor's origin is best situated in early 19th century America, not ancient America. There were no Lamanites prior to c. 1828 and dark skin is not a physical trait of God's malediction. Native Americans do not need to accept Christianity or the BoMor to know their own history. The BoMor emerged from Joseph Smith's own struggles with his God. Mormons need to look inward for spiritual validation and cease efforts to remake Native Americans in their own image.

    This is Tom Murphy's opinion.  He did not make such a case in his previous 41 paragraphs.  He would be safe to say "There is no DNA evidence of Lamanites prior ...", but he needs to be cautious in this area.  Woodward ( see below ) has the same evidence, but takes a more professional and cautious tone.  Murphy is correct in that we all need to look inward for spiritual validation - however, that again is his and my opinion, and is not part of the first 41 paragraphs of this piece.

    Another point he brings up here deserves our full attention, and that is his dark skin comment.  He made a further comment in an interview ( see below ) that bears on this issue.  In his doctoral dissertation, Murphy "documents the Mormon practice of the removal of Native American children back to the 1840s, rather than the 1940s, the era usually claimed as the informal beginnings of the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program. The Placement Program, deemed cultural genocide [ these are neither Tom's words, nor mine, but are the words of Amerind critics of the Mormon Indian Placement program ] by critics, removed over 70,000 Native American children from their homes from 1954-96 and placed them with urban white Mormon families in systematic efforts to turn Indians 'white and delightsome.' " I have seen no refutation of this claim, nor even a serious attempt to address it - note that many Amerinds and non-Amerinds would not consider this an issue, but rest assured that many do consider it genocide or racist.

    The term "cultural genocide" is not the correct anthropological term.  Anthropologists distinguish between "genocide," which implies killing people, from "ethnocide," which implies destruction of a culture.  Since the latter is what is being discussed, it is highly unfortunate that a bastard terminology should be introduced that includes such a highly-loaded word as "genocide."  Destruction of a culture may be a terrible thing, but it should not be exaggerated in a way that implies mass murder.

    The Indian Placement Program may have been something that deserves the criticism that Tom and some Indians give it, but the Church can't win for losing on the issue.  When it was discontinued, there were also Native Americans who criticized the Church vehemently for *that*. The article (and Tom) come across as if there were some unanimous agreement among Native Americans that the Placement Program was an unquestionably bad thing.  But the fact is, Native Americans who knew about it did *not* agree about that.  This tells me that viewpoints on the question are "political" rather than "factual."  We hope that  Tom does an even handed analysis of this in his thesis, and is objective about all, rather that supporting one political faction over another.

    Tom has noted these problems, and has written the following:  "It would be more appropriate to say that these are the words of the critics (predominantly Native Americans) as I had noted. I agree with your preference for term ethnocide and, in fact, make that same argument in my dissertation draft. The problem is that the use of the term "ethnocide" developed after (and in response to) the regular use of cultural genocide to describe such policies. Thus, it is only recently that I have seen Native American critics using the term ethnocide, as in the example from Tom Goldtooth that I cite in the print version of 'Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics.' "

    One more point in this area.  Tom is fighting a fight that does not need to be fought - he is fighting against the notion that the Book of Mormon is the history of ALL of the Indians on the North and South American continent.  While this is commonly believed by the grass root Mormons, men such as Apostle Dallin Oaks, John Sorenson and Scott Woodward ( the last two prominent BYU anthropologists ) argue that the Book of Mormon people are just a small part of those who came to these two continents.  I refer the reader to Sorenson's excellent book "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon." and to Woodward's work cited elsewhere on this page  Thus Tom Murphy is fighting against that which most Mormon Book of Mormon educators no longer teach.  

    However, it would be unfair of me not to state that many Mormon leaders, including our current church President, Gordon B. Hinckley, still state views that all ancient American people are from Lehi.  Examples are:

    [Text of dedicatory prayer given by President Gordon B Hinckley on April 30, 2000.] "We remember before Thee the sons and daughters of Father Lehi. Wilt Thou keep Thine ancient promises in their behalf. Lift from their shoulders the burdens of poverty and cause the shackles of darkness to fall from their eyes. May they rise to the glories of the past. " (May 13, 2000 LDS Church News, Article about new Cochabamba Bolivia temple)

    In an interview with the Church News, President [Gordon B.] Hinckley commented on the appreciation of the Ecuadorian members for the new temple….. He noted that "it has been a very interesting thing to see the descendants of Father Lehi in the congregations that have gathered in the [Guayaquil Ecuador] temple. So very many of these people have the blood of Lehi in their veins and it is just an intriguing thing to see their tremendous response and their tremendous interest." [President James E. Faust – 2nd Counselor in the First Presidency in his interview for the Church News] said that the "Latin people have a special quality of softness and graciousness and kindness. They are a great people -- they are sons and daughters of Father Lehi, and they have believing blood. They are a beautiful people, inside and out." (Aug 7, 1999 Church News - Guayaquil Ecuador Temple dedication: 'A wondrous day' for members)

    Excerpt of the text of the dedicatory prayer of the Colonia Juaréz Chihuahua Temple, given March 6, 1999, by President Gordon B. Hinckley. "May the sons and daughters of father Lehi grow in strength and in fulfillment of the ancient promises made concerning them. " (Mar 13, 1999 LDS Church News – Colonia Juarez Chihuahua Mexico Temple Dedicatory Prayer).

    Note that Apostle Dallin Oaks has a slightly different point of view.

    ¶43 In 1973, after weighing the overwhelming archaeological evidence against an ancient origin for the BoMor, Michael Coe implored Latter-day Saints:

    Forget the so-far fruitless quest for Jaredites, Nephites, Mulekites, and the lands of Zarahemla and Bountiful; there is no more chance of finding them than of discovering the ruins of the bottomless pit described in the book of Revelations. ... Continue the praiseworthy excavations in Mexico, remembering that little or nothing pertaining to the Book of Mormon will ever result from them. And start digging into the archaeological remains of the Saints themselves. [86]

    Again, this is Coe's opinion.  He would be safe to say that so far no such evidence has yet been found, but his statement above goes past the evidence.  However, in my opinion, Coe is correct in that we all need to dig into our personal, and our religion's, archaeological past.

    ¶44 As we enter the 21st century, I would like to offer similar advice to Latter-day Saints. Continue our praiseworthy genealogical endeavors and efforts to preserve ancient history. Make use of the latest genetic technologies to enhance the precision and accuracy of genealogical records and historical research. Avoid fruitless quests for Israelite DNA in ancient America—there is little more chance of finding genetic proof of Lehite civilization than there is of finding the BoMor gold plates.

    I am glad for such advice, but this again has nothing to do with the preceding 41 paragraphs.  And, while there is little chance of finding any direct supporting evidence of the Book of Mormon, at least based on past finds, the chance is not zero.  And, Tom Murphy is very aware that Mormon scriptural records have been found ( Book of Abraham in the Met Museum ).  So, the chance is not zero on finding Book of Mormon plates either.

  3. For articles on Murphy's late November 2002 heresy hearing, see http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/98020_mormon02.shtml and
    http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/West/11/29/mormon.scholar.ap/index.html  and
    http://www.sltrib.com/2002/nov/11302002/saturday/7024.htm and 
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134591344_mormon07m.html and
    http://www.thespectrum.com/news/stories/20021130/localnews/481793.html and
    http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/rnb/archives/00001462.html and
    http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon87.html and  
    http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/rnb/archives/00001379.html .  For an article on the postponement, see http://www.sltrib.com/2002/Dec/12092002/utah/9535.asp.  For later articles ( mid-January 2003 ) see http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/103898_cmurphy13.shtml and http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/003/14.24.html

  4. Brant Gardner, whose work is well known and appreciated by me, has written up an analysis of the DNA work and Murphy's conclusions.  It can be found at http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom07.html   In Brant's paper, he makes many of the points I made earlier ( see above ).  Note that another work by FAIR is given below.   Gardner did the kind of work that was called for here.  

  5. For an article on the controversy, see http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_migr1.htm

  6. An extremely thought provoking article about DNA and the Boo

    k of Mormon can be found at http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/index.htm   The most thought provoking section states "In his doctoral dissertation, Murphy "documents the Mormon practice of the removal of Native American children back to the 1840s, rather than the 1940s, the era usually claimed as the informal beginnings of the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program. The Placement Program, deemed cultural genocide [ these are neither Tom's words, nor mine, but are the words of Amerind critics of the Mormon Indian Placement program ] by critics, removed over 70,000 Native American children from their homes from 1954-96 and placed them with urban white Mormon families in systematic efforts to turn Indians 'white and delightsome.' " I have seen no refutation of this claim, nor even a serious attempt to address it - note that many Amerinds and non-Amerinds would not consider this an issue, but rest assured that many do consider it genocide or racist.

    The term "cultural genocide" is not the correct anthropological term.  Anthropologists distinguish between "genocide," which implies killing people, from "ethnocide," which implies destruction of a culture.  Since the latter is what is being discussed, it is highly unfortunate that a bastard terminology should be introduced that includes such a highly-loaded word as "genocide."  Destruction of a culture may be a terrible thing, but it should not be exaggerated in a way that implies mass murder.

    The Indian Placement Program may have been something that deserves the criticism that Tom and some Indians give it, but the Church can't win for losing on the issue.  When it was discontinued, there were also Native Americans who criticized the Church vehemently for *that*. The article (and Tom) come across as if there were some unanimous agreement among Native Americans that the Placement Program was an unquestionably bad thing.  But the fact is, Native Americans who knew about it did *not* agree about that.  This tells me that viewpoints on the question are "political" rather than "factual."  We hope that  Tom does an even handed analysis of this in his thesis, and is objective about all, rather that supporting one political faction over another.

    Tom has noted these problems, and has written the following:  "It would be more appropriate to say that these are the words of the critics (predominantly Native Americans) as I had noted. I agree with your preference for term ethnocide and, in fact, make that same argument in my dissertation draft. The problem is that the use of the term "ethnocide" developed after (and in response to) the regular use of cultural genocide to describe such policies. Thus, it is only recently that I have seen Native American critics using the term ethnocide, as in the example from Tom Goldtooth that I cite in the print version of 'Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics.' "
  7. Kevin Barney has written a A Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's "Galileo Event.  It was written for the February 2003 edition of Anthropology News, and can be found at  http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom08.html .  You will note that he makes many points that I have also made ( see below ).  All in all, this is the best essay on the topic I have found.

  8. Home page - Murphy's up-to-date home page at Edmonds Community College is at http://faculty.edcc.edu/~tmurphy .  Another home page ( not up-to-date ) can be found at http://students.washington.edu/twmurphy/His publications have appeared in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Ethnohistory, Journal of Mormon History, Review of Religious Research, Dialogue, and Sunstone. He is the recipient of Dialogue's 1997 Theology and Scripture Writing Award f Summaries of the controversy generated by this article are available on this site, at

  9. Tom Murphy's publications include 

    2003   

    "Genetic Research a 'Galileo Event' for Mormons," Anthropology News 44.2 (February): 20.
    2002
    "An Other Mormon History," Review of Jorge Iber, Hispanics in the Mormon Zion, 1912-1919 College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2000; Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35.3 (Summer): 189-191.

    Review of Terryl Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion New York: Oxford University Press, 2002; Journal of Mormon History 28.2 (Fall): 192-198.

    "Study Guide for American Muslims," in Asma Hasan, American Muslims: The New Generation 2d. Ed.New York: Continuum, 2000, 201-204.

    "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics," in Vogel, Dan and Brent Metcalfe, eds. American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon Salt Lake City: Signature, 47-77.

    Reviews of F. LaMond Tullis, Mormons in Mexico: The Dynamics of Faith and Culture, Los Mormones en México: La Dinámica de la Fe y la Cultura. Translation by The Museum of Mormon History in Mexico. 2d Ed. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997. Fernando R. Gómez Páez. “The States of México and Morelos: Their Contribution During the Re-Opening Period of Missionary Work, 1901-1903,” “Margarito Bautista Valencia,” “Francisco Narciso Sandoval: Lamanite Missionary,” “The Third Convention,” Provo, UT: Museo de Historia del Mormonism en México, no date; Journal of Mormon History 28.1 (Spring): 280-289.

    2001
    "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics," Mormon Scripture Studies <http://mormonscripturestudies.com>.
    2000
    "Other Mormon Histories: Lamanite Subjectivity in Mexico," Journal of Mormon History 26.2 (Fall): 179-214.
    1999
    “From Racist Stereotype to Ethnic Identity: Instrumental Uses of Mormon Racial Doctrine,” Ethnohistory 46.3 (Summer): 451-480.

    Review of Roderic Ai Camp, Crossing Swords: Politics and Religion in Mexico. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997; Review of Religious Research 41(Fall): 133-134.

    Review of Raymundo Gómez González and Sergio Pagaza Castillo, "El Águila Mormón o el Anarquista Cristiano": Plotino Constantino Rhodakanaty, Primer miembro de la Iglesia de Jesucristo de los Santos de los Últimos Días en México. Mexico, D.F.: Museo de Historia del Mormonismo en México, 1997; Journal of Mormon History 25.2 (Fall): 210-214.

    1998
    “‘Stronger Than Ever’: Remnants of the Third Convention,” Journal of Latter Day Saint History, 10: 1, 8-11.
    1997
    “Fifty Years of United Order in Mexico,”Sunstone 20.3 (October): 69.

    “Laban’s Ghost: On Writing and Transgression,”Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 30.2 (Summer): 105-128.

    “Guatemalan Hot/Cold Medicine and Mormon Words of Wisdom: Intercultural Negotiation of Meaning,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36.2 (June): 297-308.

    1996
    “Reinventing Mormonism: Guatemala as a Harbinger of the Future?” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 29.1 (Spring): 177-192.
    1994
    “Peyote and the Word of Wisdom: Part II,”Sacred Record 15.2 (June): 3-4.
    “Peyote and the Word of Wisdom: Part I,”Sacred Record15.1 (March): 4-6.
    1992
    "Justice For Whom?: Reflections on the Persian Gulf War," unpublished essay that garnered honorable mention in the 1993 Elie Wiesel Prize in Ethics.


  10. KUER interview - KUER interview by Doug Fabrizzio featuring Tom Murphy, Scott Woodward, and Terryl Givens on the topic of DNA and the Book of Mormon.  This is very much worth your while to listen to this from three different perspectives ( respectively:  non-active LDS, very active LDS, LDS ).  It can be found at  http://audio.kuer.org:8000/file/rw121902.mp3 If this happens to not work, you can find it here.  For a transcript of the interview, go to http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/woodward01/RadioWest.html 

  11. Doug Fabrizzio was incorrect when he said that Terryl Givens is not LDS. See the news articles below.  Dr. Givens book By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture That Launched a New World Religion is quite good, and thought provoking.  

    http://www.sltrib.com/2002/oct/10132002/Arts/6366.htm

    http://www.meridianmagazine.com/handof/021114handof1.html

    http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/journal/FJ200112.html

  12. Tom Murphy has written:  The research in Colombia that Scott Woodward referred to in the KUER interview appears to be the product of recent admixture, not an ancient source as needed for the Book of Mormon. While he emphasized that it was not evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, many listeners have misinterpreted his statement. Bill Bradford, another BYU biologist, also incorrectly claimed at the 2002 Salt Lake City Sunstone Symposium, that the Cohen modal haplotype had been found among "Indians" in Colombia. I cited the Colombian research in note 70 of my article in American Apocrypha. The abstract of the article (Luis G. Carvajal-Carmona, et al. "Strong Amerind/White Sex Bias and a Possible Sephardic Contribution among the Founders of a Population in Northwest Colombia" American Journal of Human Genetics 67:1287-1295, Nov. 2000) reads as follows:

    " Historical and genetic evidence suggest that the recently founded population of Antioquia (Colombia) is potentially useful for the genetic mapping of complex traits. This population was established in the 16th-17th centuries through admixture of Amerinds, Europeans, and Africans and grew in relative isolation until the late 19th century. ... These data indicate that ~94% of the Y chromosomes are European, 5% are African, and 1% are Amerind. Y-chromosome data are consistent with an origin of founders predominantly in southern Spain but also suggest that a fraction came from northern Iberia and that some possibly had a Sephardic origin.".  The full article is available online as a PDF file at
    http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbtarl/Antioquia.pdf

  13. A review of the streaming video can be found at http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom01.html   However, according to Tom Murphy, Cooper Johnson misrepresents Scott Woodward on several points.  Woodward's clarifications regarding those errors are included in the print version of Murphy's article, pp. 65-66. Murphy has talked with Cooper and others at FAIR about fixing the mistakes but they've apparently chosen not to do so.  Both Cooper Johnson and Tom Murphy have given me direct and personal permission to post an email which was an exchange between them on this very point.  I have not edited the email at all - all words are Cooper Johnson's.

    Brother Murphy,

    Greetings!  My name is Cooper Johnson and I'm the author of the FAIR review article on Woodward's FAIR conference presentation...you referenced in your paper in American Apocrypha. 

    You wrote several quick criticisms of the conclusions of the article, which is fine.  They were pretty much all Dr. Woodward's views and conclusions and I was simply writing a summary-review article, so I saw no need to defend myself.

    But there is one issue that has persisted and continues to pop up in various places (Message Boards, Discussion Lists, etc).  The issue is that I botched Woodward's conclusions in my article...and the specific conclusion was in relation to a Woman's mtDNA coming to a "screeching halt," when she has no daughters.

    While I don't loose any sleep over the issue, it has recently come to my attention that this claim (my hack job of Woodward's views) has reared it's head again on a dissident/liberal discussion list.  So, I figured I would provide you with a quote from Woodward's presentation that was the basis for my statement.  You do what you want with it.

    Woodward, referring to a chart on his slide, said in the FAIR presentation:

    "Mitochondrial inheritance, remember, comes from a mother to her children.  It comes down to both males and females, but it's solely inherited from the mother.  So if we look at individual #2 who is the mother up here, gave her mitochondrial DNA to individuals #4, #5, and #6, who gave it to #10, who gave it to #15, who gave it to #17.  So you can see the inheritance of mitochondrial DNA.  My mother's mitochondrial DNA has ended up like #9 over there because my mother didn't have any daughters.  Her mitochondrial DNA, as far as she is concerned, has come to an evolutionary dead end; it's stopped, it hasn't been transmitted to the next generation...So you can see that the mitochondrial DNA that I have, that I inherited from my mother, has not been transmitted to the next generation through me."

    So, perhaps the conclusion is incorrect.  I'm not here to debate that with you.  I just thought you might like to see the actual statement and my basis for making the claim.

    There was one other one you mentioned and that was when I questioned, as Woodward did, Lehi's DNA.  You said, in so many words, that Lehi's DNA would have been irrelevant, with respect to mtDNA...only the women of Lehi's party would have been relevant.

    Understood...however, once again, Woodward makes the same remark.  Here's his statement:

    "Have we identified any DNA evidence of Lehites or Mulekites or Jeredites or any other matter of 'ites' in the Americas that may have derived from the Middle East.  I have a very serious question about that, that relates to the population structure.  What did the genes of Lehi look like?  How do we find out today what the genes of Lehi look like?  I think that's a valid question to ask."

    And I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that someone of Woodward's calibur was obviously talking about Lehi's party...not Lehi, specifically.

    But, I see your point.

    Anyway...just thought I would clear the air on that.  I didn't feel like going to all the various Message Boards and Discussion lists and defending myself...I don't think that would do any good.  But, I felt like you might want to know where I was coming from.

    Take care and God bless,

    Cooper Johnson

  14. An unprofessional "hatchet" job on Murphy's character can be found at http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/murphy.pdf   It is full of ad hominem attacks, personal attacks, non-sequiturs, factual mistakes of the first order, and many logical fallacies.  Whether you like Tom Murphy, or his work, or do not like it, you should deplore Wyatt's hatchet  job on him.  It my opinion, it is the exact opposite of how we should treat our fellow human beings.  Tom's reply is found at the bottom of this page.  Note the difference in tone.  I have personally asked that FAIR rewrite the piece, to take out the invectives, to accept Tom's corrections.  So far, they have refused.  If they do reissue the piece, I will post it also.  

  15. Dr. Michael Whiting, a well known DNA researcher, has stated "It's an inappropriate comparison [ Murphy to Galileo ].  The difference is Galileo got the science right.  I don't think Murphy has."  Dr. Whiting, who is cited in my evolution section ( he is an ardent evolutionist ) was featured on the January 16, 2003 edition of the journal Nature.  His article can be found at http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6920/full/nature01313_fs.html or on this site.  Whiting's BYU lecture, however, came to a different conclusion.

  16. Tom Murphy will meet with his Stake President again on Sunday, February 23, 2003.  This comes from an email he sent.  Some extracts of that email are:

    1. I have been called back in for a meeting with President Latimer, scheduled for 8:00 p.m. on Sunday, Feb. 23rd. This is supposed to be a conversation, not a disciplinary council.

    2. KCPQ Fox 13 (Seattle) is running a special news program on my case, also on Sunday, Feb. 23rd (10:00 p.m.). The program should include interviews with several Native American ex-Mormons, Dr. Michael Whiting from BYU, and me.

    3. Lavina Fielding Anderson provided me with the following new statement.  Lavina Fielding Anderson has learned of another scholar, who does not wish to make the details of his or her situation public, being called in during the same August-December time frame as the earlier cases. In this situation, Elder Lance Wickman, a Seventy and head of the Church's Legal Department, played an active role in representing the Strengthening Church Members Committee to the stake president. This raises the possibility that Wickman has been involved in other cases as well. "Two other General Authorities," presumably at a rank superior to Wickman's were also involved in reviewing the material.

    When the existence of the Strengthening Church Members Committee was revealed in 1993, it was headed by two apostles, then James E. Faust and Dallin H. Oaks. If the same structure has been maintained, the "two other General Authorities" would presumably be members of the Quorum of the Twelve.  According to the Deseret News Church Almanac 2003, p. 46, Wickman is a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy (meaning that it is a permanent appointment until age seventy, not a five-year appointment like the lower quorums. His biographical information reads: "General counsel, office of Legal Services. Sustained to the Second Quorum of the Seventy April 2, 1994 [this was also the date or near it that the Office of Legal Services was created], at age 53; sustained to the First Quorum of the Seventy April 1, 2000. Served as regional representatives, stake president, and bishop. Received bachelor's degree from University of California at Berkeley and juris doctorate from Stanford University. Former partner in the international law firm of Latham and Watkins in San Diego, California. Born Nov. 11, 1940, in Seattle, Wash. to Alton C. and Irene Marilyn Carlson Wickman. Wife, Patricia Farr Wickman; parents of five children.


    5. I am preparing for a lecture on my research at Edmonds Community College.  The following announcement went out to campus email this past week.

    The Teaching and Learning Diversity Committee announces the following event, featuring a talk by one of our own faculty members, Thomas Murphy.
    Sin, Skin, and Seed:
    Mistakes of Men in the Book of Mormon
    Thomas W. Murphy
    Triton Union 202
    Tuesday, February 25, 7:00 - 8:30 p.m.

    A question and answer period and a book signing will follow the lecture.  Copies of American Apocrypha, the anthology containing Murphy's article, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics," will be available for purchase. All proceeds will be donated to the Pow Wow fund for the American Indian Student Association who will also host a bake sale at the event.

    Abstract:
    This presentation critically examines the use of folk biology to naturalize the power and authority of white men in Mormon scripture. It identifies key challenges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints faces in light of recent advances from the biological sciences. Is the Book of Mormon's assumption that skin color reflects sinfulness consistent with biological understandings of human physical variation? Are Biblical and Book of Mormon images of a patriarchal seed transmitted from fathers to sons consistent with modern understandings of biogenetic procreation?  Is an Israelite heritage of Nephites and Lamanites reflected in the genes and biology of American Indians? Research shows that skin color does not reflect sin. Agricultural models of human procreation do not accurately reflect women's contribution of half the genes of their children. Genetic data point to a Northeast Asian origin of Native Americans, not an Israelite one. Each of these assumptions should be relegated to what the title page of the Book of Mormon calls "mistakes of men." Furthermore, Mormon scriptural views of Native American origins and skin color are rooted in colonial and antebellum biblical hermeneutics, not authentic American Indian traditions.

    Biographical Statement:

    Thomas Murphy is Chair of the Anthropology Department at Edmonds Community College where he has been recognized as Club Advisor of the Year 2000-2001 for his work with the Native American Student Association. His publications have appeared in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Ethnohistory, Journal of Mormon History, Dialogue, and elsewhere. His research on the Persian Gulf War garnered a prize in ethics from the Elie Wiesel Foundation and his investigation of the sociological uses of writing in the Book of Mormon earned a literary award from the Dialogue Foundation. A recent article using genetic data to discredit the Mormon view that Native Americans came from ancient Israel has been the subject of international media attention. When the LDS Church initiated an attempt to excommunicate him in December 2002, supporters generously deemed him the "Galileo of Mormonism" and organized candle light vigils in ten different U.S. cities to show their support for his courage. In response to the negative publicity the LDS Church indefinitely postponed the church disciplinary action. "Sin, Skin, and Seed: Mistakes of Men in the Book of Mormon," is a synthesis of two chapters of his doctoral dissertation in anthropology, currently in progress, at the University of Washington. This event is sponsored by the Teaching and Learning Diversity Committee.

    best,
    twm

  17. February 23, 2003 - Tom is free from any more hearings.  Stake President Matt Latimer told Tom that he was no longer under threat of a hearing.  A story on it can be found at http://heraldnet.com/Stories/03/2/24/16557388.cfm?cityid=24 .  An article about it, along with a very nice TV video piece from KCPG, a Seattle TV station,  can be found at http://q13.trb.com/kcpq-022403mormon,0,996113.story .  Tom sent the following public letter ( Kerrie is Tom's wife ).

    Dear Colleagues, Friends, and Family,

    Kerrie and I had a very pleasant meeting this evening with President Matthew Latimer of the Lynnwood, WA stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). President Latimer had invited us to meet to discuss my scholarship and status in the church after indefinitely postponing disciplinary action on December 7th, the day before he had previously scheduled a disciplinary council to consider the possibility of excommunication for apostasy.

    I am pleased to report that President Latimer has placed a permanent hold on disciplinary action against me. He invited Kerrie and me to participate in continued private dialogue with the hope that he can encourage us to return to full activity and belief in the LDS Church without any threat of disciplinary action. In response to my inquiry, he assured us that he was not receiving pressure from his priesthood leaders to take action against me. He acknowledged consulting them to discuss my case but found them to be very supportive of his responsibility to make the proper decisions for his stake. He declined my invitation to co-sponsor open academic forums on genetics and racism in the Book of Mormon and recommended that I discuss that option with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies at Brigham Young University. We all agreed that these issues are best addressed in an academic rather than an ecclesiastical setting.

    We are very appreciative of the support that so many of you have shown us throughout this ordeal. We hope that other stake presidents will follow this most recent example of President Latimer and likewise refrain from using the threat of the threat of excommunication as tool for disciplining scholars.

    Cordially,

    Thomas W. Murphy

  18. Meridian Magazine published an article on Murphy.  It is not good in that it too engages in ad hominems of the worst sort, but disguised in polite language.  It can be found at http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/030128anti.html 

  19. Tom Murphy has his students extract their DNA in his class, and then find out their ( long term ) ancestry.  An article that describes this is found at http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/03/1/23/16398186.cfm .  To see the results of the students DNA samples, go to http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/03/3/17/16658978.cfm .

  20. Anthropology News (44.5, May, 2003) has printed two letters critical of the February article by Simon Southerton and Tom Murphy, "Genetic Research a 'Galileo Event' for Mormons." One of the letters is an excerpt from Kevin Barney's review of the news article published in the newsletter for FAIR. The editor invited Tom to reply to Barney's critique. If you are a member of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) you may view the letters and Tom's reply online at the address below.

    http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/index.htm

    Nonmembers of AAA may request a copy of the correspondence on page 4 of the May, 2003 (44.5) issue of Anthropology News from Ghita Levine (glevine@aaanet.org).

    Kevin Barney's full review can be found at the page below.

    http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom08.html

    Finally, you can find a copy of "Genetic Research a 'Galileo Event' for Mormons" as well as Tom's reply to the excerpted part of Barney's review linked
    to Tom's list of publications on Tom's home page.

    http://faculty.edcc.edu/~tmurphy/publications.html

  21. The following statement regarding Thomas Murphy and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was issued by Janice Merrill Allred, a Trustee of the Mormon Alliance.  This was issued when Brother Murphy's Stake President had asked him to appear for a hearing on his membership.

    The Mormon Alliance is disturbed and saddened to learn of the impending excommunication of Thomas Murphy from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for his scholarly writings on the Book of Mormon. This appears to be part of an ongoing policy to discipline scholars who publish material which challenges the doctrines or history of the LDS church.

    While it is understandable that it is disturbing for church leaders (and members) to be confronted by scholarly studies that challenge basic church teachings, it is not right to respond to this challenge by threats, punishment, or excommunication. A church that professes to be the Church of Jesus Christ ought to follow the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ and respond with love and respect for truth and all the paths that lead to it.

    An institution that punishes those who challenge its doctrines or history discourages its members in their pursuit of truth and reveals a lack of faith in its own doctrine. Instead of punishing scholars, the church should encourage more and better scholarship and support its members in coming to their own understanding of truth.

  22. Tom Murphy has written the following ( January 25, 2003 ) and have given me permission to post it.  It deals specifically with the Whiting material posted immediately above , but before Whiting's presentation.

    Dear Friends and Colleagues,

    A few minutes ago I sent the following open letter to Michael Whiting and all those listed on the Cc line below. You are free to forward this letter to interested parties and to encourage an appropriate response from Dr. Whiting.


    January 25, 2003

    Dear Dr. Michael Whiting:

    I would like to congratulate you on your recent publication in Nature. It appears that your research, if validated by similar studies, will make a valuable contribution to our understanding of the processes of evolution. I am concerned, however, with an abstract of an upcoming BYU campus lecture "Does DNA Evidence Refute the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon?" that
    appears at the URL addresses below.

    http://farms.byu.edu/extended.php?id=150
    http://www.dcomp.com/dna-flyer.gif

    The abstract includes gross misrepresentations of researchers, including me, who have argued that genetic evidence collected to date fails to support the Mormon claim of an Israelite ancestry for Native Americans, in part or in whole. I outline the misrepresentations below and request that you correct these errors in the abstract and the presentation or that you facilitate a response from those of us that you have maligned.

    The critics of the Mormon claim of an Israelite ancestry for some or all Native Americans include many prominent scholars and scientists. In addition to my presentations at Sunstone, various radio shows, and publications at http://mormonscripturestudies.com and in American Apocrypha, the following individuals have made statements to the press critical of the Mormon claims about Native American ancestry.

    Michael Crawford    U. of Kansas
    Bryan Sykes            Oxford University
    Miroslava Derenko    Russian Academy of Sciences
    Neil Bradman            Center for Genetic Anthropology

    The conclusions of these scholars have been substantiated in interviews with the following individuals for a forthcoming video, from which selections are available on the web at http://www.mormonchallenge.com.

    Stephen Whittington, U. of Maine
    David Glenn Smith, U. of California at Davis
    Dennis O'Rourke, U. of Utah
    Randall Shortridge, SUNY-Buffalo
    Simon Southerton, Australian Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation

    Simon Southerton, a plant geneticist and former Mormon bishop, has also made a presentation criticizing Mormon claims about Native American and Polynesian ancestry at the Ex-Mormon General Conference, online, and on radio shows in Salt Lake City. Likewise, both Simon's presentations and mine have included dozens of citations from peer-reviewed research in leading scientific journals. You may have other critics in mind but these are the primary ones that I am aware of.

    Your abstract claims that our statements and the research that we base them on is "scientifically flawed." After you made similar statements to the press about my article in American Apocrypha I asked you to identify specific studies that you thought were scientifically flawed. While you shared some general hesitations about genetic traces of what you assumed were tiny Book of Mormon migrations, you failed to identify those scholars whose work you think is scientifically flawed. Could you please identify those scholars and their research so that they have an opportunity to reply to such accusations?

    As you must surely know, your assumption that the Book of Mormon migrations were small and engulfed by larger populations is plagued with its own set of difficulties. Would you consider acknowledging that the current introduction to the Book of Mormon still claims Lamanites "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians"? What about the claim that the Jaredite migration from the Middle East was to "that quarter where never had man been" (Ether 2:5)?  Or, Lehi's claim between 588 and 570 BC that "it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations" (2 Ne. 1:8)? What about the multitude of statements from every church president from Joseph Smith to Gordon B. Hinckley that claim a broad Lamanite and Lehite ancestry for Native Americans?  

    Your abstract claims that our statements and research "represent a basic misunderstanding of the modern methods of DNA analysis." Do you seriously mean to suggest leading researchers like Michael Crawford, Miroslava Derenko, Bryan Sykes, Neil Bradman, Stephen Whittington, David Glenn Smith, and Dennis O'Rourke do not have a basic understanding of the current methods of genetic analysis? Could you specifically identify this "basic misunderstanding" so that they have an opportunity to respond to such a wild assertion?

    Your abstract claims that our statements and research "ignore modern historical research in the Book of Mormon studies." How then do you explain my discussion of proposals of a limited Central American geography for Book of Mormon events, commentaries by FARMS, FAIR, and Scott Woodward that appear on pages 60-66 of my article in American Apocrypha? What about my statements to the press, on radio shows, and at Sunstone that take note of the possibility that the Book of Mormon may not require that all Native American have a Middle Eastern origin but that it does require that some do?  Of course, you know that the genetic research to date fails to support either the hemispheric or the regional models of the Book of Mormon. Thus, the statements and research of the non-Mormon scholars are valid regardless of whether or not they are familiar with the field of Book of Mormon studies.

    Your abstract claims that our statements and research "entirely gloss over fundamental issues in reconstructing historical events via DNA inference."  What are those fundamental issues that we gloss over?  How were all these non-Mormon scholars able to publish their research in peer-reviewed journals if they ignored such fundamental issues? If I'm guilty of glossing over fundamental issues then how do you explain my acknowledgement of the limitations of genetic research and discussion of various disputes about the genetic evidence that appear on pages 50-51, 53, 55-57 of my article in American Apocrypha? What about the significant attention I devote on pages 64-66 to the limitations noted in publications by FARMS and FAIR?

    I am deeply disappointed that someone of your stature in the field would resort to such blatant misrepresentations of my research and that of other leading non-Mormons scholars just to advance a religious agenda. I would like to request that you do one or more of the following things to rectify this problem.

    1. The most appropriate thing for you to do at this point is to correct the distortions in your abstract and forthcoming presentation.
    2. If you are unwilling to do this then perhaps you would consider inviting one or more of the scholars you are criticizing to join in the panel that will follow your presentation.
    3. Finally, you could provide each of the scholars I have listed above and Cc'ed this letter to with a copy of your prepared statements and an oral or audio recording of the presentation and panel so that we may respond in another forum or publication.

    As Mormons we face a very disconcerting lack of any substantiating genetic or archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon's representations of ancient America. I realize that there are legitimate grounds for differing interpretations of the evidence. I also recognize the dilemma that you face as an employee of Brigham Young University. Yet, when Scott Woodward and Bill Bradshaw, also from BYU, have appeared in forums at Sunstone and on Radio West they have shown much more candor about the problems and much more accurately represented the research of other scholars. You do not need to resort to such unprofessional tactics to make your point. I would encourage you to follow the example of your colleagues and resist the intense pressure you must feel to conform to religious dogma.

    Cordially,

    Thomas W. Murphy
    http://faculty.edcc.edu/~tmurphy


    Cc: NBradman@compuserve.com
    ibpn@online.magadan.su
    bryan.sykes@imm.ox.ac.uk
    CRAWFORD@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU
    Steve.Whittington@umit.maine.edu
    dgsmith@ucdavis.edu
    dennis.orourke@anthro.utah.edu
    rds@acsu.buffalo.edu
    Simon.Southerton@ffp.csiro.au
    Keith_Crandall@byu.edu
    David A. McClellan@byu.edu
    heath_ogden@byu.edu
    dcp6@email.byu.edu
    Scott_Woodward@byu.edu
    william_bradshaw@byu.edu


  23.   In response to Wyatt's attack piece, Tom Murphy wrote the following open letter

    9 January 2003

    I am saddened that Allen Wyatt and FAIR would avoid dealing with the real issues by trying to discredit me as a person.  On the other hand, I am pleased that Wyatt uncovered some issues that I have been trying to get reporters to cover more accurately.  My limited success in that endeavor certainly helped make his reporting job much easier.  Unfortunately, Wyatt did get some key facts wrong.

    What did he get right?

    1. I am not an active member of my local ward.  I have not attended church on a regular basis for nearly a decade. The only exceptions have been while conducting ethnographic research with Latter-day Saints in Mexico and Guatemala. In fact, I prefer to call myself a Latter-day Skeptic.  I do not profess to be much of a Saint.

    2. It would be within the rights of the LDS Church to excommunicate someone who believes like I do, but I feel it would be a stronger church if they allowed and considered the scientific evidence that I outline in my essay. I have publicly challenged the central doctrine that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical document. I understand why some people might think it would be good for the church to maintain tight boundaries by excommunicating me. Simplistic black and white versions of religion are much more marketable than complex ones. They are really good for attracting new members. Unfortunately, there are also costs that go along with excommunication. Many Mormons, especially those with multi-generation membership in the church, prefer a more tolerant atmosphere that provides space for a freer search for truth. Ultimately, the church needs to decide which path it wants to pursue.

    3. I consider members of the Mormon intellectual community to be my philosophical peers. I admire the work of Mormon scholars like D. Michael Quinn, Lavina Fielding Anderson, Maxine Hanks, Janice Allred, Brent Lee Metcalfe, and others who have been excommunicated for their research. I also appreciate the scholarship of active Latter-day Saints like Armand Mauss, Sergio Pagaza, Raymundo and Fernando Gomez, Duane Jeffries, Trent Stephens, and many others. I consider them some of the most important contributors to Mormon cultural thought in the twentieth century. I am proud to be associated with them and see that association as an expression of my loyalty to Mormon culture.

    4. I initiated contact with Joel Kramer. However, I did not realize he was associated with Living Hope Ministries at the time. David Glenn Smith, molecular anthropologist at UC Davis, told me that Kramer was producing a video on DNA and the Book of Mormon. I contacted him to share a copy of my essay, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics."  He invited me to do the interview. Yet, he did tell me about his association with Living Hope Ministries on the day of the interview. I take full responsibility for still agreeing to do the interview for reasons explained below.

    5. I spoke with Steven Clark and many other people before my interview with my stake president. Steven Clark played a role in organizing the candle light vigils in Salt Lake City and elsewhere but Kathy Worthington, who I've never met, played an even larger role. My students at Edmonds Community College, though, were the first to suggest a candle light vigil. When Steven Clark suggested the idea to me later I put him in contact with my students. I played a minimal role in the vigils beyond expressing my support and desire that they be peaceful and legal.

    6. I obtained some funding for my research from Mormon Scripture Studies (http://mormonscripturestudies.com). I wrote the essay "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics" at their request. However, they never attempted to impose any particular interpretation on the data.

    What did he get wrong?

    1. Wyatt claimed that racism, sexism, and homophobia in the church are far afield from my area of specialty. I am a cultural anthropologist specializing in ethnicity, folk biology, and religion. Racism and sexism in the church have been a central concern of my research for the past decade. I have been publishing articles on the subject in peer reviewed journals since 1996. See a list of my publications at the page below.
    http://faculty.edcc.edu/~tmurphy/publications.html

    2. Wyatt suggests that my approach is "akin to anti-Semitism" and by implication that I am an anti-Mormon. It is precisely this dichotomous view of the world, one as simply black and white, that I hoped to challenge by agreeing to be interviewed by Living Hope Ministries. I hope to show viewers that one could be a Mormon and still think critically. One of the most empowering moments for me as a college student was when a member of my bishopric told me that he believed the Book of Mormon was a nineteenth century document. Finally, I felt that I could be a Mormon and a critical thinker at the same time. By challenging such simplistic views of the world I hope to provide similar inspiration for young Mormons wrestling with the same sorts of
    questions, ones that are inevitable in today's college classrooms.

    3. Wyatt claims that I am seeking alliances with people who want to destroy the church. A more accurate statement would be that I seek alliances with everyone who is willing to pursue the truth.

    Wyatt did not tell his readers that last August, when I was interviewed by Living Hope Ministries, that I also sought alliances with FAIR. I asked Scott Gordon, President of FAIR, if he would be willing to host a panel of scholars to discuss the DNA evidence no matter where the evidence might lead. He said, no, that only those who began and ended with the assumption the Book of Mormon was an ancient document would be welcome at FAIR. The difference between FAIR and Living Hope Ministries is that the latter group sought all perspectives on the issue, thus I was included in their presentation but have not been included at FAIR.  Incidentally, Trent Stephens, an LDS biologist at Idaho State University, is also interviewed by Living Hope Ministries in the same video.
    Wyatt is also likely unaware of other alliances I have sought. Well before my association with Living Hope Ministries I invited Scott Woodward or another representative of the Molecular Genealogy Research Group to come to Edmonds Community College, at our expense, to give a presentation about their project. He never replied to the invitation. Alternatively, we invited Pearl Duncan, the first African American to trace her genealogy back to Africa, to speak on our campus.

    I have offered to co-sponsor a forum with FARMS on DNA and the Book of Mormon. This offer has included raising at least half the money to bring leading genetic researchers in the field, Book of Mormon, and Native American scholars to the Edmonds Community College campus for the forum.  Bill Hamblin expressed no interest but said he would forward the offer to other researchers associated with FARMS. So far, they have not replied to the offer.
         
    4. Wyatt claimed that my actions were the "the moral equivalent of a Jewish person aiding and abetting anti-Semitic groups." I see them quite differently. I see them as the moral equivalent of loving your enemies.  By showing an openness and willingness to confront the most difficult questions from within Mormonism, we can show people that they have nothing to fear from Mormons.

    5. The small stipend I received from Mormon Scripture Studies did not come from critics of the LDS Church. It came ultimately from an active LDS member who prefers to remain anonymous. Using Mormon Scripture Studies as a medium of exchange allowed him or her to preserve anonymity.

    6. Steven Clark did not leak my story to the press. After I had expressed my intention to go public, Ron Priddis of Signature Books forwarded my letter to Richard Ostling of the Associated Press who forwarded it to Patty Henetz. Ultimately, I must take full responsibility for my desire to go public and for agreeing to the interview. I did so because I believe that the best way to deal with ecclesiastical abuse is to expose it.

    7. Wyatt claims that the LDS Church would not respond to my statements through the media. Actually, they did so twice that I am aware of. From Salt Lake City, the church issued a statement noting that I had written a number of other articles that were critical of the church besides the one in American Apocrypha. While that is true my stake president appeared to be unaware of those other publications when he called me in for an interview. Matt Latimer, my stake president, also sent a letter to the press expressing his concern for my emotional well-being and a desire to avoid publicity as a reason for indefinitely postponing the disciplinary council.

    I hope that these statements help clear the air. I appreciate Wyatt taking the time to investigate my case but wish he would correct his factual errors and avoid trying to demonize me. As Mormons we should aspire to a higher standard. FAIR would provide a much greater service to the LDS community if it would sponsor and encourage honest and open exploration of the most difficult issues facing Mormons today. It could start doing so by actually dealing truthfully with the serious problems that the genetic data pose for both hemispheric and limited geographic models of the Book of Mormon.

    My best,
    twm

    http://faculty.edcc.edu/~tmurphy

DNA and the Book of Mormon

  1. The following appeared on the LDS church official website at 
    DNA and the Book of Mormon
    Various media outlets, 11 November 2003

    The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is exactly what it claims to be — a record of God’s dealings with peoples of ancient America and a second witness of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The strongest witness of the Book of Mormon is to be obtained by living the Christ-centered principles contained in its pages and by praying about its truthfulness.

    Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence are ill considered. Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex. Those interested in a more detailed analysis of those issues are referred to the resources below.

    The following are not official Church positions or statements. They are simply information resources from authors with expertise in this area that readers may find helpful:

    "Before DNA" (John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003) Download PDF document (715 KB)  

    "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective" (Michael F. Whiting, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003) Download PDF document (431 KB)

    "A Few Thoughts from a Believing Scientist" (John M. Butler, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003) Download PDF document (169 KB)

    "Who Are the Children of Lehi?" (D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003) Download PDF document (427 KB)

    While the church statement above that "nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin" is correct, the wording in the preface of the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites are the "principal ancestors of the American Indians" does preclude that the overwhelming vast majority of the Amerinds are of Asiatic origins.  As explained elsewhere, the "principle ancestors" phrase was added to the Book of Mormon in 1981, and is not canonical.

  2. An excellent article from Time magazine about DNA is found at http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030217/story.html 

  3. Apostle Dallin Oaks, a first class intellectual, has written about the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  It is found at http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/bom/Oaks_Historicity.htm .  In the article, he writes the following, in support of what is now known as the Sorenson limited Book of Mormon geography model:

    "For me, this obvious insight goes back over forty years to the first class I took in the Book of Mormon at BYU. The class was titled, somewhat boldly, the "Archaeology of the Book of Mormon." In retrospect, I think it should have been labeled something like "An Anthropologist Looks at a Few Subjects of Interest to Readers of the Book of Mormon." Here I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.

    In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. You do not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular Eskimo culture represents migrations from Asia. The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas"

    I will not attempt to reconcile what Oaks writes in his article, and what Gordon B. Hinckley said above.  Please note that this implies that the limited geography model was taught at BYU as early as the 1950s.  John Sorenson credits Louis E. Hills (an RLDS scholar), writing in 1917, with the first formulation of a limited geography. See the chart on page 32 of Sorenson's Source Book. The idea has clearly been around for a very long time. It has yet, however, to capture the imagination of most Mormons, let alone the church hierarchy. Perhaps, that is changing. In fostering that change I see Signature Books and FARMS as heading in the same direction, but one group is moving a little faster than the other.  

    A few other General Authorities have supported a limited geography model, but not many.  The only ones I know of are Anthony W. Ivins, then first counselor in the First Presidency in the April 1929 conference: "We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent. (Ivins, 1929, p. 15)"  

    Other scholars between Sorenson and Hills have maintained a limited geography model for the book of Mormon.  Sjodahl wrote   "students should be cautioned against the error of supposing that all the American Indians are the descendants of Lehi, Mulek, and their companions" and "not improbably that America has received other immigrants from Asia and other parts of the globe". In 1938, A Guide to the Study of the Book of Mormon by William Berrett and Milton Hunteras ( a LDS Department of Education publication). It said "the Book of Mormon deals only with the history and expansion of three small colonies which came to America and it does not deny or disprove the possibility of other immigrations, which probably would be unknown to its writers" (Berrett et al., 1938, p. 48).

    The phrase "principal ancestors of the American Indians" was inserted in to the Book of Mormon preface in 1981 ( See below for more on this preface ).  It has long been known that the person who inserted it was Bruce R. McConkie.  Brother McConkie was part of a three man steering committee who reworked the information surrounding the Mormon scriptures.  The other two members of that steering committee were Thomas S. Monson and Boyd K. Packer.

  4. Brant Gardner, whose work is well known and appreciated by me, has written up an analysis of the DNA work and Murphy's conclusions.  It can be found at http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom07.html   In Brant's paper, he makes many of the points I made earlier ( see above ).  Note that another work by FAIR is given below.   Gardner did the kind of work that was called for here.  

  5. An extremely thought provoking article about DNA and the Book of Mormon can be found at 
    http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/index.htm   The most thought provoking section states "In his doctoral dissertation, Murphy "documents the Mormon practice of the removal of Native American children back to the 1840s, rather than the 1940s, the era usually claimed as the informal beginnings of the Mormon Indian Student Placement Program. The Placement Program, deemed cultural genocide [ these are neither Tom's words, nor mine, but are the words of Amerind critics of the Mormon Indian Placement program ] by critics, removed over 70,000 Native American children from their homes from 1954-96 and placed them with urban white Mormon families in systematic efforts to turn Indians 'white and delightsome.' " I have seen no refutation of this claim, nor even a serious attempt to address it - note that many Amerinds and non-Amerinds would not consider this an issue, but rest assured that many do consider it genocide or racist.

    The term "cultural genocide" is not the correct anthropological term.  Anthropologists distinguish between "genocide," which implies killing people, from "ethnocide," which implies destruction of a culture.  Since the latter is what is being discussed, it is highly unfortunate that a bastard terminology should be introduced that includes such a highly-loaded word as "genocide."  Destruction of a culture may be a terrible thing, but it should not be exaggerated in a way that implies mass murder.

    The Indian Placement Program may have been something that deserves the criticism that Tom and some Indians give it, but the Church can't win for losing on the issue.  When it was discontinued, there were also Native Americans who criticized the Church vehemently for *that*. The article (and Tom) come across as if there were some unanimous agreement among Native Americans that the Placement Program was an unquestionably bad thing.  But the fact is, Native Americans who knew about
    it did *not* agree about that.  This tells me that viewpoints on the question are "political" rather than "factual."  We hope that  Tom does an even handed analysis of this in his thesis, and is objective about all, rather that supporting one political faction over another.

    Tom has noted these problems, and has written the following:  "It would be more appropriate to say that these are the words of the critics (predominantly Native Americans) as I had noted. I agree with your preference for term ethnocide and, in fact, make that same argument in my dissertation draft. The problem is that the use of the term "ethnocide" developed after (and in response to) the regular use of cultural genocide to describe such policies. Thus, it is only recently that I have seen Native American critics using the term ethnocide, as in the example from Tom Goldtooth that I cite in the print version of 'Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics.' "

  6. KUER interview - KUER interview by Doug Fabrizzio featuring Tom Murphy, Scott Woodward, and Terryl Givens on the topic of DNA and the Book of Mormon.  This is very much worth your while to listen to this from three different perspectives ( respectively:  non-active LDS, very active LDS, LDS ).  It can be found at  http://audio.kuer.org:8000/file/rw121902.mp3 If this happens to not work, you can find it here.  For a transcript of the interview, go to http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/woodward01/RadioWest.html 

  7. Doug Fabrizzio was incorrect when he said that Terryl Givens is not LDS. See the news articles below.  Dr. Givens book By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture That Launched a New World Religion is quite good, and thought provoking.  

    http://www.sltrib.com/2002/oct/10132002/Arts/6366.htm

    http://www.meridianmagazine.com/handof/021114handof1.html

    http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/journal/FJ200112.html

  8. Tom Murphy has written:  The research in Colombia that Scott Woodward referred to in the KUER interview appears to be the product of recent admixture, not an ancient source as needed for the Book of Mormon. While he emphasized that it was not evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, many listeners have misinterpreted his statement. Bill Bradford, another BYU biologist, also incorrectly claimed at the 2002 Salt Lake City Sunstone Symposium, that the Cohen modal haplotype had been found among "Indians" in Colombia. I cited the Colombian research in note 70 of my article in American Apocrypha. The abstract of the article (Luis G. Carvajal-Carmona, et al. "Strong Amerind/White Sex Bias and a Possible Sephardic Contribution among the Founders of a Population in Northwest Colombia" American Journal of Human Genetics 67:1287-1295, Nov. 2000) reads as follows:

    " Historical and genetic evidence suggest that the recently founded population of Antioquia (Colombia) is potentially useful for the genetic mapping of complex traits. This population was established in the 16th-17th centuries through admixture of Amerinds, Europeans, and Africans and grew in relative isolation until the late 19th century. ... These data indicate that ~94% of the Y chromosomes are European, 5% are African, and 1% are Amerind. Y-chromosome data are consistent with an origin of founders predominantly in southern Spain but also suggest that a fraction came from northern Iberia and that some possibly had a Sephardic origin.".  The full article is available online as a PDF file at
    http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbtarl/Antioquia.pdf

  9. A short clip of Mormon Church President Gordon B. Hinckley discussing DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon can be found at http://www.livinghopeministries.info/DNA%20Evidence/DNA%20Evidence.htm   Since the piece is very short, the transcript is as follows.  The interviewer is from a German media outlet, and speaks broken but excellent English.  I have preserved his grammar and words

    Interviewer:  What do be your position when DNA analysis will show that history never have an immigration from Israel to North America?

    Gordon B. Hinckley:  It hasn't happened.  That hasn't been determined yet.  All I can say is that's speculating.  No one really knows the answer to that.  Not at this point.

    Now, my comments.  I agree with Hinckley, but only to the extent that Scott Woodward makes the point ( see the KUER interview above ).  President Hinckley is not a scientist.  His answer, for a lay answer, is about where truth lies.  

  10. An earlier show on Radio West that included Brent Metcalfe, Dan Vogel, and Trent Stephens.  Trent Stephens is an LDS biologist at Idaho State U. who co-wrote the excellent book Evolution and Mormonism, A Quest for Understanding, and is working on a book on DNA and the Book of Mormon.  Dan Vogel is a researcher in early Mormon documents, and has written several books.  Brent Metcalfe is a writer, and has edited / written several books on the 19th century origins of the Book of Mormon.  Vogel and Metcalfe edited the book noted in #1 above.  The Radio West broadcast can be found at http://audio.kuer.org:8000/playlist.pls?mount=/file/rw082602.mp3&file=dummy.pls 

  11. FAIR, a Mormon apologetic site, has a nice streaming video on DNA and the Book of Mormon at RealMedia for modem connections , RealMedia for fast (DSL or better) connections or Windows Media for modem connections

  12. A review of the streaming video can be found at http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom01.html   However, according to Tom Murphy, Cooper Johnson misrepresents Scott Woodward on several points.  Woodward's clarifications regarding those errors are included in the print version of Murphy's article, pp. 65-66. Murphy has talked with Cooper and others at FAIR about fixing the mistakes but they've apparently chosen not to do so.  Both Cooper Johnson and Tom Murphy have given me direct and personal permission to post an email which was an exchange between them on this very point.  I have not edited the email at all - all words are Cooper Johnson's.

    Brother Murphy,

    Greetings!  My name is Cooper Johnson and I'm the author of the FAIR review article on Woodward's FAIR conference presentation...you referenced in your paper in American Apocrypha. 

    You wrote several quick criticisms of the conclusions of the article, which is fine.  They were pretty much all Dr. Woodward's views and conclusions and I was simply writing a summary-review article, so I saw no need to defend myself.

    But there is one issue that has persisted and continues to pop up in various places (Message Boards, Discussion Lists, etc).  The issue is that I botched Woodward's conclusions in my article...and the specific conclusion was in relation to a Woman's mtDNA coming to a "screeching halt," when she has no daughters.

    While I don't loose any sleep over the issue, it has recently come to my attention that this claim (my hack job of Woodward's views) has reared it's head again on a dissident/liberal discussion list.  So, I figured I would provide you with a quote from Woodward's presentation that was the basis for my statement.  You do what you want with it.

    Woodward, referring to a chart on his slide, said in the FAIR presentation:

    "Mitochondrial inheritance, remember, comes from a mother to her children.  It comes down to both males and females, but it's solely inherited from the mother.  So if we look at individual #2 who is the mother up here, gave her mitochondrial DNA to individuals #4, #5, and #6, who gave it to #10, who gave it to #15, who gave it to #17.  So you can see the inheritance of mitochondrial DNA.  My mother's mitochondrial DNA has ended up like #9 over there because my mother didn't have any daughters.  Her mitochondrial DNA, as far as she is concerned, has come to an evolutionary dead end; it's stopped, it hasn't been transmitted to the next generation...So you can see that the mitochondrial DNA that I have, that I inherited from my mother, has not been transmitted to the next generation through me."

    So, perhaps the conclusion is incorrect.  I'm not here to debate that with you.  I just thought you might like to see the actual statement and my basis for making the claim.

    There was one other one you mentioned and that was when I questioned, as Woodward did, Lehi's DNA.  You said, in so many words, that Lehi's DNA would have been irrelevant, with respect to mtDNA...only the women of Lehi's party would have been relevant.

    Understood...however, once again, Woodward makes the same remark.  Here's his statement:

    "Have we identified any DNA evidence of Lehites or Mulekites or Jeredites or any other matter of 'ites' in the Americas that may have derived from the Middle East.  I have a very serious question about that, that relates to the population structure.  What did the genes of Lehi look like?  How do we find out today what the genes of Lehi look like?  I think that's a valid question to ask."

    And I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that someone of Woodward's calibur was obviously talking about Lehi's party...not Lehi, specifically.

    But, I see your point.

    Anyway...just thought I would clear the air on that.  I didn't feel like going to all the various Message Boards and Discussion lists and defending myself...I don't think that would do any good.  But, I felt like you might want to know where I was coming from.

    Take care and God bless,

    Cooper Johnson

  13. Dr. Michael Whiting, a well known DNA researcher, has stated "It's an inappropriate comparison [ Murphy to Galileo ].  The difference is Galileo got the science right.  I don't think Murphy has."  Dr. Whiting, who is cited in my evolution section ( he is an ardent evolutionist ) was featured on the January 16, 2003 edition of the journal Nature.  His article can be found at http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6920/full/nature01313_fs.html or on this site.  Whiting's BYU lecture, however, came to a different conclusion.

  14. Dr. Michael Whiting ( see above, and the evolution page ) gave a lecture at BYU on January 29, 2003 at BYU.  A flyer for that event is found here .  An abstract of what he was to present is found at http://farms.byu.edu/extended.php?id=150 along with a copy of the flyer which is also found at http://www.dcomp.com/dna-flyer.gif .  

  15. A newspaper report of Dr. Whiting's January 29, 2003 remarks can be found at http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/41852/   This report portrays Dr. Whiting's treatment as very light.  A video of the presentation, but not the panel discussion, can be found at http://farms.byu.edu/multimedia/viewmovie.php?id=1    A transcript of the panel discussion can be found here, or at http://www.salamandersociety.org/news/.  The video is a very large file, and running it might need a rather high speed modem.  I understand from some people at FARMS that there will, in fact, be a transcript, although probably only of Dr. Whiting's presentation. The panel discussion, from those there and from the transcript above, did not go well.  One of the issues might have been that the panel members felt they were there to discuss the DNA issue only, but were asked other questions, such as whether native American people are all descended from "Lamanites." That could account for the attitude some of them seemed to exhibit -- they weren't prepared for those questions.

    His opening "We are the modern Galileo, hear us roar" was a direct not-so-kind reference to Tom Murphy, and Maxine Hanks' description of Tom.  His comment "I find it extraordinary ironic, delightfully so, that evolutionary biology is coming to the defense of the Book of Mormon".  I agree with him completely.  

    Whiting states, in direct words, that what I have referred to as the Sorenson limited geography model is the only possible way to interpret the area where the Nephites and Lamanites supposedly lived.  He says that "the Global Colonization Hypothesis is incorrect."  He openly says that the ancestry of most of the native population of North and South America can most likely be found in Asia.  He calls the Lehite colonizers a "small genetic blip".  Whiting says that we should work with the Local Colonization Hypothesis.  He says this has been taught by Book of Mormon scholars for 20 years.  ( He is off by at least 30 years - it was taught at least as early as the early 1950s ).  He blithely dismisses the Global Colonization Hypothesis ( the traditional teaching of the church about the Book of Mormon ), and says he does not want to get into this.  In essence, he and Tom Murphy are in complete agreement as to the ancestry of the bulk of the native population of North and South America. 

    He shows, somewhat convincingly, that the Local Colonization Hypothesis cannot be tested.  His gumball machine examples are a good way to teach DNA and population genetics, though his teaching method came across to me cute, and maybe even flip - however, it was entertaining.  He points out that we do not the genetic makeup of the Lehite party, nor of the middle eastern population at the time.  He points out that the  "founder effect" ( the founder effect in this case refers to the probability that Lehi's very small party carried genes not representative of their source population - in effect, they are too small of a subset ) made the problem untestable.  In addition, genetic swamping would have ruined the genetic blip ( swamping - those here before the Lehites intermarried with the Lehites, and there were so many non-Lehites that there is in effect no Lehite DNA left ).  In effect, the fundamental question left if you follow Whiting is whether the church will abandon the Global Colonization Model.  This is exactly where Murphy leads you in his DNA section.  Murphy goes beyond this, however, in some of his other conclusions.

    Whiting states at the beginning that the truth of the Book of Mormon could not be obtained or ascertained by scientific means.  A few weeks before his talk, he criticized Murphy for not getting the science right, but in this presentation he in effect said "Murphy is right in his DNA science.  He is not right in his other hypotheses."

    My first analysis is that Dr. Whiting's talk is good in that it puts him on the same side as almost all scientists who have studied the historic roots of the American Indians.  He is on the same side as Tom Murphy in this area.

    In his talk, he did not address the hard issues ( nor did he intend to ) - the abandonment of the church's traditional teachings of the ancestry of the Amerinds ( of the Book of Mormon ), and the influence of the 19th century Joseph Smith on the translated book.

    Whiting correctly states that the abandonment of the Global Colonization Hypothesis does not mean abandoning the Book of Mormon.  There could easily be such a group of Lehites somewhere in the Americas ( north, central, or south ), or they could have easily been wiped out in battles post 400 CE ( AD ).  For examples of the local colonization model at work, see the note below about the Salutrean descendents in the upper Midwest of the United States.    

  16. In his January 29, 2003 presentation, Whiting stated that the preface phrase "principle ancestors of the American Indians" was placed in the Book of Mormon in 1950.  His date is not correct - it was inserted in 1981, as stated elsewhere on this page.  There was no significant change in the Book of Mormon from 1920 to 1981.  While various small editorial alterations in the body of the book did creep in during that time, there was no change in the introductory matter, which remained the same as James E. Talmage produced for the 1920 edition.

    Talmage's 1920 introductory material included a one-page analysis of the relationship of the text of the book to the various sets of plates described in the book and an excerpt from the Documentary History of the Church / Pearl of Great Price story of
    Joseph Smith's receiving the plates.  None of this material contained the sort of interpretive text ( "principle ancestors" ) that McConkie (& company) added to the 1981 edition.

    A Book of Mormon transmission scholar looked specifically at a 1950 printing and found that it looks just like the other derivations of the 1920 edition; no newly inserted language.

    He is correct in that the introduction to the Book of Mormon is a commentary, and is not scripture.

  17. John Tvedtnes covered several issues, including DNA and the Book of Mormon, at http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/10Points_for_Disbelief.htm 

  18. Simon G Southerton (simon.southerton@csiro.au), PhD U of Sydney, Australia, is a senior research scientist with CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products, a specialist division of the Australian Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation. His essay "DNA Genealogies of American Indians and the Book of Mormon" appears at www.exmormon.org/whylft125.htm. The data presented came from his address "DNA Genealogies of Native Americans and Polynesians," presented at a Oct 2002 conference in Salt Lake City.  Southerton was an LDS Bishop when he left the church over this issue - one wonders why such a drastic action had to be taken when many others quoted here, such as Apostle Oaks, are still very much part of this church yet understand Southerton's data.  His article is thought provoking.  He has completed a book length manuscript on this topic, and will have his book published this coming March 2004.  A small blurb on it can be found at http://www.signaturebooks.com/Losing.htm .  

  19. Living Hope Ministries has released the full video "DNA vs. the Book of Mormon" online. See http://www.mormonchallenge.com/dna/dna.htm .  Brent Metcalfe posted a rather good review of this video.  It can be found at http://pub26.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm58.showMessage?topicID=309.topic .  His review also expresses my views ( in general ).  It bothers me when either side ( including, at times, Brent, but not in this case - he begs for a fair middle ground in this review ) makes biased statements.  Here is that review:

    A night or so ago, my wife and I watched the new video DNA vs. the Book of Mormon (Living Hope Ministries) and I thought I'd share a few thoughts.

    The good, ...  LHM has gathered a stellar cast to discuss BoMor problems posed by Amerindian genetics. LDS, ex-LDS, and non-LDS scientists lucidly explain the significance of mtDNA and Y-chromosomal analysis for understanding the peopling of the Americas. A running commentary (interspersed among the specialists' cameos) gives a reasonably good intro to the BoMor doctrine of Lamanite identity and destiny. Uniformly, all those interviewed (with the exception of Gordon B. Hinckley) acknowledge that Amerinds originally migrated from Asia, and that there is no evidence of an ancient Middle Eastern contribution to the Amerind genome.

    For those reasons alone, the video was worth watching.

    ... the bad, ...  I was deeply disappointed by the overt bias exhibited by the video editors. Viewers are repeatedly informed that genetic evidence indicates that Amerindian ancestors migrated to the Americas from their Asian homeland; but viewers are never told when this occurred. Based on coalescent theory, geneticists place the migration(s) at 15,000–30,000 YBP, which some Evangelical types would believe is approximately 9,000–24,000 years before the earth was created.

    Science isn't a yard sale where we rummage through curious trinkets until we find those that best suit our taste. The very genetic club that Evangelical creationists use to bludgeon Mormons is actually a two-edged sword that snuffs creationism with the same ferocity that it slays the myth of BoMor Amerisraelites.

    Tom Murphy's comparison between biblical and BoMor archaeology was obviously edited to convey the view of LHM. I know firsthand that Tom feels that the Bible has its own set of problems that undermine biblical literalism. Those who watch the film will note that Tom is abruptly cut off when discussing this issue.

    ... and the ugly!  The video's uncritical, simplistic come-to-Jesus postscript struck me as almost humorous, especially following on the heels of erudite scientific exchange. LHM producers should have taken a few pointers from the IRR's The Lost Book of Abraham video.


    Cheers, bReNt

  20. It was 100% clear from Dr. Whiting's presentation that he did not believe that the Global Colonization Hypothesis ( that the principle ancestors of the Amerinds were from Lehi ) could be sustained because of the DNA evidence.  It is also clear that the hypothesis that there were only Siberian overland migrations cannot be sustained because of archaeological evidence.  

    For instance, there are a group of Amerinds in the Great Lakes area whose ancestry most likely goes back to France and Spain.  This Great Lakes / southern Europe link might soon be confirmed - there is a proposal to test the DNA connection on the Morrison Island find. This is not the first time that Great Lakes First Nations ( Amerind ) remains have been DNA-tested and found to contain X-haplotype in the mtDNA.  As well, here are some links to online items about European-North American links for those who are interested in learning more:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbus.shtml .  This talks about the same Clovis point ( Salutrean ) evidence as the Morrison Island article above.

    http://www.runestone.org/kmcnnct.html   This is mostly about Kennewick Man ( northwestern United States, with features that appear much more European than Asian ), but also talks about Salutrean links.  

    http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/03/oldest.skull/ is very interesting.  It shows that non-Siberians were here 12,700 years ago ( in this case, possibly Japanese ), and were here long before the Siberian-rooted Amerinds.  There is another write-up on this discovery in Discover March 2003 issue.  I will post the link when it is put online ( usually, about a week after the issue is mailed ).  The ending quote from geologist Silvia Gonzalez says "We need to discard the hypothesis that it was just one massive migration into America.  The picture is much more complicated."  She is right.  This should give great solace to those who support the Limited Geography Model.  The skull talked about here is dated earlier than any other human remains found in the Americas.

    http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Chumash/EntryDate.html  This is a very well done link from UCLA.  It covers many topics.  Among the most interesting is scientific information that shows that the migration link might have been by sea, and not overland.  That exact link can be found at http://www.sciencenews.org/20000205/fob2.asp 

    http://www.fp.ucalgary.ca/unicomm/news/Stmary/spearhead.htm  The first evidence of man hunting horses, although too early for Book of Mormon chronology, was discovered by a Latter-day Saint elementary school teacher, Shayne Tolman, in Cardston, Alberta, at St. Mary's Reservoir, in a corridor that Bering peoples took, called the Mackenzie-Alberta Corridor. 

    http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/anthropology/anthropology-millerprint060901.html  More background, this time on  some DNA testing of Ojibway First Nations ( Amerind ) peoples, who are closely related to the First Nations Algonquins of the Ottawa Valley (in fact, linguistically, Ojibway is part of the Algonquian language family, which in turn is part of the Algic  Amerindian super-family).   

    The new world has had many groups come here, and stay, as shown above.  For another group's migration, the Chinese in this case, see http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_907602.html 

    An interesting link on First Nations ( Amerind ) view of DNA studies can be found at http://www.ipcb.org/publications/briefing_papers/files/identity.html .   This site does more to talk about the limitations of putting Amerinds in certain families than Whiting did.  A very well done paper.

    For the best article on the topic of Amerinds, The Atlantic Monthly introduced the non-dispersion theory to the general public.  See http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/03/mann.htm and a follow-on discussion with the author at http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2002-03-07.htm .  From the same source is the best article http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/01/001stengel.htm on the diffusion of Amerinds.

  21. An excellent video on the topic of DNA is called The Real Eve, from the Discovery Channel.  A good discussion of DNA and ancestral migration on that site is found at http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/realeve/ask/ask.html 

  22. Other sites of interest in the area of DNA and Amerinds are 

    bullet

    Map: Tracing Human History Through Genetic Mutations

    bullet

    Scientific Information about Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)

    bullet

    mtDNA & Native American origins

    bullet

    Native American DNA Research

    bullet

    Native American Origins

    bullet

    The Central Siberian Origin for Native American Y Chromosomes

    bullet

    Questions About Book of Mormon Evidence

    bullet

    DNA Graphics

    bullet

    http://dwij.org/forum/amarna/comments/popedna.html Includes specific comments on Woodward's work

  23. Jeff Lindsay has a large write-up on DNA and the Book of Mormon at http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml.  He is all apologetic all the time.  In areas of my expertise ( 1838 Missouri, Blacks and the Priesthood ), he is wrong more often than right.  I'll leave it to the DNA experts to comment on this DNA section.

  24. To see the reverse of Lindsay's page above, an anti-Mormon site about this topic is found at http://www.mormonchallenge.com/dna/dna.htm   Another site, but not nearly as strident, can be found at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/9636/tract/dna_additional.htm .  There are many anti-Mormon sites on this topic.  I will not list them all - my general policy is to not list polemic sites from either side on any issue, except as absolutely needed.  The ones above are representative.   Please note that a paper that comes to a conclusion that the Mormon church might not like is not per se anti-Mormon.  A paper whose purpose is to attack the church or its works, is anti-Mormon.  Many Mormons do not understand the difference, in my opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home ]

Send mail to mel@tungate.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2005 Mel Tungate
Last modified: March 19, 2006